Liability admitted - what happens next

The blind bat who ran me over 18 months ago (or, to be precise, her
insurers) has admitted liability for the crash.

It would appear that all we have to do now is haggle over the vulgar
issue of money. Anyone been here before and got any idea what happens next?

As an aside, the money is of less importance to me than knowing that her
insurance premiums will have gone up[1]. Is this likely, or would a 21
year old driver have been top whack, anyway?

[1] As the CPS declined to prosecute, paying more to drive will be the
only implication of running someone over to her.

Not Responding wrote:

The blind bat who ran me over 18 months ago (or, to be precise, her
insurers) has admitted liability for the crash.

It would appear that all we have to do now is haggle over the vulgar
issue of money. Anyone been here before and got any idea what happens
next?

Sorry, can't answer that question. Maybe uk.legal(.moderated?) is a better
place to ask.

As an aside, the money is of less importance to me than knowing that her
insurance premiums will have gone up[1]. Is this likely, or would a 21
year old driver have been top whack, anyway?

[1] As the CPS declined to prosecute, paying more to drive will be the
only implication of running someone over to her.

No chance of a private prosecution or suing her for damages then? Or have
you already done that?

--
Chris

"Not Responding" wrote in message
.uk...
The blind bat who ran me over 18 months ago (or, to be precise, her
insurers) has admitted liability for the crash.


Great! It's about time.

It would appear that all we have to do now is haggle over the vulgar issue
of money. Anyone been here before and got any idea what happens next?


You have to put forward a figure of how much you want, explaining what it is
for - special damages for itemised out of pocket expenses - loss of
earnings, damage to clothing and bike, additional costs of travel to work
while off the bike/outpatients, any other extra costs arising from lack of
facility of use of arm and any expected extra costs in future arising from
any long-lasting/permanent disablement, etc etc - and general damages for
the pain and suffering. Assessment of general damages is generally done by
comparison to precedents - what courts have awarded in the past for similar
injuries - and usually requires specialist advice from a barrister dealing
in personal injury work who is familiar with the case law. You should
discuss all this with your solicitors. A medical report will be sought
about the nature and effect of your injuries and future prognosis. Be
creative about your losses - don't forget anything that it has cost you, any
things you missed out on or are likely not to be able to do in future as a
result of the injury or pain/restrictions in use that might arise in future
if/when the joint becomes arthritic - but be able to justify them and expect
the other side to haggle.

As an aside, the money is of less importance to me than knowing that her
insurance premiums will have gone up[1]. Is this likely, or would a 21
year old driver have been top whack, anyway?


There is no such thing as 'top whack'. The insurers can always charge more
than they previously charged.

[1] As the CPS declined to prosecute, paying more to drive will be the
only implication of running someone over to her.

C'est la vie. Just make you maximise your compensation!

Rich

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 08:01:40 +0100, Not Responding
wrote:

The blind bat who ran me over 18 months ago (or, to be precise, her
insurers) has admitted liability for the crash.

H!TFD!

It would appear that all we have to do now is haggle over the vulgar
issue of money. Anyone been here before and got any idea what happens next?

You go to see specialists who assess the extent of likely future
effect from the injuries sustained (they pay for this), and your
sillysodder uses the appropriate tables to look up the amount for pain
and suffering; you add up the costs incurred and stick those on the
bill, and I'm guessing you might ask the court for punitive damages
because they tried to evade liability.

As an aside, the money is of less importance to me than knowing that her
insurance premiums will have gone up[1]. Is this likely, or would a 21
year old driver have been top whack, anyway?

Protected NCD is probably not available for a 21-year-old.

[1] As the CPS declined to prosecute, paying more to drive will be the
only implication of running someone over to her.

You could launch a private prosecution for DWDC.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 08:01:40 +0100, Not Responding
wrote:


The blind bat who ran me over 18 months ago (or, to be precise, her
insurers) has admitted liability for the crash.


H!TFD!


It would appear that all we have to do now is haggle over the vulgar
issue of money. Anyone been here before and got any idea what happens next?


You go to see specialists who assess the extent of likely future
effect from the injuries sustained (they pay for this), and your
sillysodder uses the appropriate tables to look up the amount for pain
and suffering; you add up the costs incurred and stick those on the
bill, and I'm guessing you might ask the court for punitive damages
because they tried to evade liability.



I think a consultation with a solicitor? I was involved in a car
accident, and my insurance had that legal cover. Their legal people did
it all, including arranging to see (and paying for) a consultant. I got
£2k for a simple rear end tap, but the important thing for me was no
hassle. I wouldn't have bothered otherwise.

Rob

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...

bill, and I'm guessing you might ask the court for punitive damages
because they tried to evade liability.


Are you saying that ironically? Nice thought, but there's no recognition of
'punitive damages' in the UK. The purpose of a claim is to put the claimant
into the position he or she was in immediately before the negligence
occurred - the 'special' damages, and a compensation element for pain and
suffering as a result of the negligence - 'general' damages but these are
awarded on the basis of the claimant's condition and not as a means of
penalising the other side.

Even in the US system, AIUI, punitive damages are generally only awarded for
"egregiously invidious and wilful actions, not for mere carelessness or
negligence".

Rich

"Not Responding" wrote in message
.uk...
The blind bat who ran me over 18 months ago (or, to be precise, her
insurers) has admitted liability for the crash.

It would appear that all we have to do now is haggle over the vulgar
issue of money. Anyone been here before and got any idea what happens
next?

I can cite two contrasting approaches, my brothers and mine:

Bro was knocked off from behind on a clear dual carriageway and besides
damage to bike and togs sustained some physical damage to his arm that
required a couple of ops.
He used a solicitor and drew out the claim as long as possible for the
following reasons:
He's single and was prepared to put up with the hassle.
He needed remedial treatment that an early settlement wouldn't have taken
into account.
He was in no rush for the money.

The end result, materially, was satisfactory for him. I can't recall if the
driver got done.

I was T -boned at a roundabout and besides the bike being written off and
clothing ruined suffered very painful but superficial injuries.
Because my injuries were superficial after contacting a "no win, no fee"
solicitor I decided to deal with the drivers insurance company directly as I
wanted to resolve things quickly and move on with life.
The insurance company was accomodating and an early settlement resulted.
Materially my expenses were covered but quite likely I *may* have got more
money but not without hassle I can live without.
The offending driver was sent on an improvement course in lieu of being
charged with an offence.

My brothers claim probably went on for well over18 months whereas mine was
done and dusted in 3 months.... new bike, new togs, new scars and driver
reprimanded.

It's really up to how much hassle you're prepared to put up with, if you
are going to suffer long term physical or mental problems then maybe you
should pursue it to the end of the line, your choice.
--
Pete

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 10:03:47 +0100, "Richard Goodman"
wrote:

Are you saying that ironically? Nice thought, but there's no recognition of
'punitive damages' in the UK. The purpose of a claim is to put the claimant
into the position he or she was in immediately before the negligence
occurred - the 'special' damages, and a compensation element for pain and
suffering as a result of the negligence - 'general' damages but these are
awarded on the basis of the claimant's condition and not as a means of
penalising the other side.

I believe it. On the other hand, it is arguable that the event has
permanently marred Francis' enjoyment of one of his principal
recreational activities, so damages could be extracted on that basis.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
On the other hand, it is arguable that the event has
permanently marred Francis' enjoyment of one of his principal
recreational activities, so damages could be extracted on that basis.


Absolutely, you would want to try and get some compensation for that, but
unless you can find a way to quantify it and put it in as special damages,
AIUI you can probably only try arguing for an uplift on your general damages
for it. The problem with that is that the UK courts are generally not very
generous with general damages, so you could be starting from what could seem
like a relatively low base compared to what you might expect, and not be
able to add very much extra on to them compared to what it seems like it is
worth to you.

In one of my damages claims I put an amount in for anticipated future loss
of capacity to do DIY, saying that would incur extra cost paying for things
to be done I might otherwise have done myself - special damages. But I
didn't get anything for loss of ability to do certain yoga poses!

Rich

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 13:17:17 +0100, "Richard Goodman"
wrote:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
.. .
On the other hand, it is arguable that the event has
permanently marred Francis' enjoyment of one of his principal
recreational activities, so damages could be extracted on that basis.


Absolutely, you would want to try and get some compensation for that, but
unless you can find a way to quantify it and put it in as special damages,
AIUI you can probably only try arguing for an uplift on your general damages
for it.

Yes, that's precisely the sort of thing that falls within general
damages: loss of enjoyment.

Does the OP have a solicitor? It's not necessary, but a good PI
solicitor will ensure that he/she gets appropriate compensation.


Good luck, and congrat's on the admission of liability!


Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk